A FINDING OF PROBABLE CAUSE IN THE IMPEACHMENT

COMPLAINT AGAINST CHIEF JUSTICE MA. LOURDES P.

SERENO

THE CASE

A complaint for impeachment was filed against Chief Justice

Ma. Lourdes P. Sereno by lawyer Atty. Lorenzo Gadon . Upon filing,
the same was declared to be sufficient in form and substance. The
violations allegedly committed are enumerated herein as follows, to
wit:

1. Under culpable violation of the Constitution offense are her

supposed issuances of orders without the approval of the en banc,
her delayed action on the petitions for retirement benefits and her
failure to file her Statement of Assets and Liabilities and Networth
to the Judicial Bar and Council when she applied for her position
in 2012;

2. Under the corruption allegation, the Chief was accused of

using public funds to support her alleged lavish lifestyle, including
her purchase of a luxury vehicle worth more than 5 million and her
1.9 million worth of hotel accommodations during the Southeast
Asian summit in 2015;

3. Under impeachable offense of corruption, the Chief was

accused of evading to pay her taxes from her earnings from the
Piatco case;

4. Under betrayal of public trust, she allegedly hired an

information technology consultant with P250, 000 monthly fee
without public biddings.
 In sum, twenty seven violations were allegedly committed by
the Chief Justice which were discussed and scrutinized during
several hearings to find whether or not probable cause exists.

PROBABLE CAUSE

To answer the question whether or not probable exists, it is of

great importance to discuss what is probable cause and how it is
determined in impeachment proceedings. Probable cause is defined
as a reasonable ground to believe the certainty of the alleged facts
and more evidence against the complaint. The Black’s Law
dictionary defines it as set of probabilities grounded in the factual
and practical considerations which govern the decisions of
reasonable and prudent person and is more than a mere suspicion
an but less than the quantum of evidence required for conviction.

Simply stated, probable cause is present when there is a

reasonable ground to believe that a wrongdoing may have been
committed.

QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE

It has been settled during the impeachment proceeding of

former Chief Justice Renato Corona that in cases of impeachment
the quantum of proof required is clear and convincing proof- a more
stringent standard than preponderance of evidence but less than
proof beyond reasonable doubt.

The proceeding in an impeachment case is legal and

political in nature and is a sui generis. Meaning it is neither a
criminal or administrative proceeding but takes a hybrid
characteristic of both. As such the determination of probable cause
should not be strictly carried out as if it is a criminal trial proper.

Critics as well as Chief Justice Serreno’s camp, contradicted

the complaint by stating that the same did not satisfy the stringent
requirements of impeaching a public official as defined in our 1987
Constitution, as it relied heavily on hearsay evidences consisting
mainly of newspaper reports.

THE FINDING

However, after five months of weekly hearings on the said

complaint, it was very apparent that probable cause exists. When
Supreme Court Associate Justice de Castro confirmed and
authenticated the documentary exhibits, which form part of
Gadon’s complaint, then the degree of probability of correctness
was already met. Likewise, the Justice even confirmed the alleged
narration of events in the complaint are factual and with basis. The
same was corroborated with the testimonies of other witnesses
presented during the said hearings. All of which shed light as to the
veracity of the said complaint. Hence, the existence of probable
cause was bolstered as the pieces of evidences presented was
verified and confirmed in a clear and convincing manner.

The further appearance of the personalities mentioned by

Justice De Castro and the authentication of other documents
submitted by the latter and by Atty. Gadon is no longer needed in
order to rule for the existence of probable cause. These should be
part of the work of the Senate, acting as impeachment court - and
no longer the function of the House of Committee. Impeaching the
witness and pieces of evidence is different from determining
probable cause.
 Thus, the existence of probable cause can be ruled in the
affirmative with all that has been passed upon during the
committee hearings which was conducted even without further
authentication and additional presentation of pieces of evidences to
bolster the same.